WhatFinger


Why do I'll-never-vote-for-Trump conservatives think Hillary is an acceptable choice? She's far worse than he is

Whatever his faults, Trump is superior to Hillary in every way



I completely understand why some conservatives are horrified at the prospect of Donald Trump being the Republican nominee for president. I understand their discomfort with his bluster, with his lack of any history supporting conservative ideas, with his many contributions to Democrat candidates, with some elements of his track record in business. Some of it bothers me too, although I do think a lot of the handwringing is over things that don't really matter that much. But look, sure, nominating a guy like Donald Trump is in all kinds of ways contrary to what conservative movement types have advocated for decades. I wanted a conservative governor with a really solid record of governing achievements using conservative policy ideas, which is why I was so all over Scott Walker in the early going - and why I think to this day that it was a mistake not to give Rick Perry more serious consideration.
But hey, that's how it went. Right now Trump appears to be the odds-on favorite for the nomination, and a lot of conservatives are beside themselves of it. I get it. But what I don't get is the currently popular fad of self-styled conservative intellectuals declaring that they will never vote for Trump, even if he is the nominee, and even if it means Hillary Clinton becomes president. If the thinking here is that Trump is so far beyond-the-pale unacceptable that we must bite the bullet and support a Democrat this time around - lest we subject the nation to the horrors of Trump - I would like to remind you of something important: Whatever Trump's faults, Hillary Clinton is far worse in every conceivable way. You don't like the way Trump has made his money? I get that. What about the way she's made hers? The Clintons set up a "foundation" that's little more than a slush fund through which they filter money that comes from foreign governments and the exorbitant speaking fees that Bill and Hillary extort from big bankers, universities and business groups hoping to buy influence in the event Hillary becomes president. Whatever the problems with Trump University, they pale in comparison to that.

Support Canada Free Press


You don't like the fact that Trump games the political system to his own advantage? You don't like the way he's used bankruptcy laws to his advantage? Totally understood. But what Trump does is manipulate the law as it is to his own advantage. What Hillary does is out-and-out break the law, whether that means putting national security secrets at risk or wiping her e-mail server of content that should have been archived and preserved. And that's just the start. Let's not forget Whitewater. Let's not forget Cattlegate. Let's now forget the Rose Law Firm billing records. She may yet be indicted for the e-mail thing, but even if she skates everyone knows it will be because Loretta Lynch caved to politics over evidence, and the FBI has already indicated it may go scorched earth and release all the evidence against her if that's the case. This is one of the most corrupt human beings ever to stain the world of American politics, and that is not an easy thing to do. You think Trump is vindictive toward people who get in his way? Yeah, I've noticed it too. What about a woman who publicly attacks the victims of her own husband's sexual misconduct? And what about the fact that everyone knows she only does so to maintain his political viability, and by extension hers, speaking of which . . . You don't like the fact that Trump inherited his money? He's certainly not the first to do so, nor will he be the last, but as you wish. What about a woman whose entire political viability relies solely on the political achievements of her husband? Hillary Clinton has never done anything to recommend her as a strong candidate for the presidency. Even the impressive-looking positions on her resume she only got because the road was cleared for her, and everyone knew the only reason she wanted them was to position herself for the presidency. Her actual track record in these jobs is so unimpressive, it would disqualify any candidate whose party was not determined by hook or by crook to hand her the nomination. Oh, by the way, you've noted a handful of times where it appeared Trump lied? Maybe he did. Hillary Clinton lies just about every time she opens her mouth. She lied about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia. She lied about the billing records. She lied about classified information on her e-mail server. She lied about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary. She lied about being rejected by the Marines and by NASA. She even lied to family members of one of the dead in Benghazi about what really caused the death of their loved one. She lies with such shameless and remorseless ease that people have stopped noticing she's lying. Dishonesty and corruption, we're told, are now "priced into the Clinton brand" as if they don't even matter. To all of you who think Republicans owe it to their country to oppose their own nominee (if indeed it's Trump) because he is simply unacceptable for all the reasons you've told us over and over, I have a question: Why are Democrats not obliged to do the exact same thing when their party is set to nominate the biggest corrupt, incompetent liar since at least as far back as Richard Nixon, and perhaps even farther than that? Hillary Clinton is one of the most dispicable characters to appear on the American political scene in the history of this nation. Yet it's perfectly fine for Democrats to vote for her, but Republicans must abandon their own party on account of Donald Trump? I do not think so. By the way, if you want to get into matters of public policy, consider: Let's say that in the next administration, Paul Ryan leads the Republican House in developing legislation that would a) repeal ObamaCare, b) replace the tax code; and c) open up the development of domestic energy resources on federal lands while relaxing regulation of it on private lands? Just those three things. Forget about everything else. Ryan gets this through the House and somehow drags a nervous and reluctant Mitch McConnell to shepherd them through the Senate too. What happens under President Trump? Now, what happens under President Hillary? Neither scenario may be perfect to a conservative's liking, but which one has a more positive outcome? You know perfectly well which. So all you conservatives who are preening for your fellow conservatives about how you, too, are far too pure and virtuous to ever vote for Donald Trump can take your high-and-mighty pronouncements and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. Yes, I have very big problems with Donald Trump too. He is far from my ideal Republican nominee. But if you're so caught up in your Trump indignation that you've lost sight of just how horrendous a human being Hillary Cliinton is, then you are not really a serious person at all, and you just might understand the governance of this nation even less than you think Donald Trump does. Trump is not my choice to be the guy tasked with keeping Hillary out of the White House. But that remains the task. If you're ready to abandon that task and let this horrible woman become president, then you're not on the same team as me, that's for damn sure.


View Comments

Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.


Sponsored